Why am I supposed to care about Benghazi?

[Deleted]

I really don't understand why the Rs are all up in arms/dying on their sword for this issue? It isn't as though it is the first embassy to be attacked nor the first ambassador to die in the line of duty. 

[annieblah]

They are trying weaken Hillary, look like America cares when their own are killed and the changing story that came out of the White House/Rice. I'm still pretty angry with the news it wouldn't take 20 hours to be ready to fly, but I am used to my government being lying liars who lie out of their lie holes. I'm in between the chest beating and (some) of the Ds "oh, what difference does it make?"

[Velvetshady]

It's because they can catch Hillary in a lie* and they don't want to be facing her in the next Presidential election.



*And they know that most Americans don't care or understand how the intel world really works to understand why a govt might be stating something publicly that might not be 100% true later.

[eliseb0323]

I think it's pretty clear now that the State Dept. knew the embassy attack was terrorism. They lied. Whether they lied for security reasons, or bad intel reasons, or to cover their asses -- they lied. And they were caught. It's much like the Bush administration lying about "weapons of mass destruction" to justify invading Iraq.

What is most frightening to me is that it is clear that the embassy asked for more security and they were either ignored or denied.

The breakdown of leadership in Benghazi is tragic and unforgivable, IMO. But the Republicans are just looking for something to rant about to shift focus from their own lack of leadership.

[aurora]

May 9, 2013 9:48:53 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

I think it's pretty clear now that the State Dept. knew the embassy attack was terrorism. They lied. Whether they lied for security reasons, or bad intel reasons, or to cover there asses -- they lied. And they were caught. It's much like the Bush administration lying about "weapons of mass destruction" to justify invading Iraq.

What is most frightening to me is that it is clear that the embassy asked for more security and they were either ignored or denied.

The breakdown of leadership in Benghazi is tragic and unforgivable, IMO. But the Republicans are just looking for something to rant about to shift focus from their own lack of leadership.

Uhm, no.  It's not the same at all to lie for security reasons (or even bad intel, which isn't a lie but rather an error) as it is to lie to falsely justify a war that cost the country trillions of dollars, a decade of deaths of servicepeople, etc.  All just to solidify your own political power and/or to get revenge for some slight to Daddy.  No, it just isn't the same.

I do agree with your last sentence, though.

[summer]

May 9, 2013 9:48:53 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

It's much like the Bush administration lying about "weapons of mass destruction" to justify invading Iraq.

Well, that wasted billions of dollars and thousands of lives and Repubs didn't and still don't say "Boo" about that so I don't know why they are making a fuss now.

[annieblah]

May 9, 2013 9:51:57 GMT -5 aurora said:

May 9, 2013 9:48:53 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

I think it's pretty clear now that the State Dept. knew the embassy attack was terrorism. They lied. Whether they lied for security reasons, or bad intel reasons, or to cover there asses -- they lied. And they were caught. It's much like the Bush administration lying about "weapons of mass destruction" to justify invading Iraq.

What is most frightening to me is that it is clear that the embassy asked for more security and they were either ignored or denied.

The breakdown of leadership in Benghazi is tragic and unforgivable, IMO. But the Republicans are just looking for something to rant about to shift focus from their own lack of leadership.

Uhm, no.  It's not the same at all to lie for security reasons (or even bad intel, which isn't a lie but rather an error) as it is to lie to falsely justify a war that cost the country trillions of dollars, a decade of deaths of servicepeople, etc.  All just to solidify your own political power and/or to get revenge for some slight to Daddy.  No, it just isn't the same.

I do agree with your last sentence, though.

If we are being honest, it really should be her last 2 sentences, but I get the bias lines.

Republicans are a ship with no captain and of course they won't say boo about Iraq. Kind of like we don't hear boo about drones. Our gov is so ridiculous and broken it is sad.

[eliseb0323]

May 9, 2013 9:51:57 GMT -5 aurora said:

May 9, 2013 9:48:53 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

I think it's pretty clear now that the State Dept. knew the embassy attack was terrorism. They lied. Whether they lied for security reasons, or bad intel reasons, or to cover there asses -- they lied. And they were caught. It's much like the Bush administration lying about "weapons of mass destruction" to justify invading Iraq.

What is most frightening to me is that it is clear that the embassy asked for more security and they were either ignored or denied.

The breakdown of leadership in Benghazi is tragic and unforgivable, IMO. But the Republicans are just looking for something to rant about to shift focus from their own lack of leadership.

Uhm, no.  It's not the same at all to lie for security reasons (or even bad intel, which isn't a lie but rather an error) as it is to lie to falsely justify a war that cost the country trillions of dollars, a decade of deaths of servicepeople, etc.  All just to solidify your own political power and/or to get revenge for some slight to Daddy.  No, it just isn't the same.

I do agree with your last sentence, though.

There were people in the Bush intel community who did believe Iraq had WOMDs.  I don't think they were knowingly lying. I think there was not enough credible evidence on which to base an invasion though, and both the intel community and the administration knew this.  The fact that the administration ordered an invasion based on spotty intel is ridiculous and IMO criminal.

But the State Dept. knew damn well what was going on in Benghazi, as records are now showing. They did not take proper action to secure the embassy. I think a whole bunch of people involved in that mess should be fired.

No, the Benghazi situation and the Iraq situation do not compare at all on the scale of the damage done.  But I think in both situation the responsible parties should be held, well, responsible.

[summer]

We can agree to disagree on Iraq because I think there were a number of people knowingly lying.

I'm saying I honestly think they are so hot on this because it's a way to get at Hilary or Obama. There is no way it would be being investigated if it was Romney. It could be as possible that if it was Romney the Dems would press for investigations for political reasons, but that I don't know.

But I have a hard time believing that the same people who didn't care about the mistake (and that's me being nice) of a whole war care this much about this incident.

ETA: and can I add, I'm fine with further investigation. I think we should always look for where we failed. I hope whatever is found gets sorted out. I just wish they cared as much about the grand failure that was Iraq

[annieblah]

Well, Rs are usually pretty gung ho on war, but this has a face. 4000 soldiers, and countless civilians, don't, sadly. I agree, bias is a problem and why this is still an issue. But, otoh, I'd say this is why dems don't care as much....it doesn't bode well for Hillary or the president, really, at least in terms of leadership.

[MrsAxilla]

Jon Stewart had a funny clip last night with about 20 Fox news guys say "IF this is true....". They're just speculating there's a cover up. I agree it's an attempt to weaken Hillary.

[eliseb0323]

May 9, 2013 10:13:33 GMT -5 summer said:

We can agree to disagree on Iraq because I think there were a number of people knowingly lying.

I'm saying I honestly think they are so hot on this because it's a way to get at Hilary or Obama. There is no way it would be being investigated if it was Romney. It could be as possible that if it was Romney the Dems would press for investigations for political reasons, but that I don't know.

But I have a hard time believing that the same people who didn't care about the mistake (and that's me being nice) of a whole war care this much about this incident.

ETA: and can I add, I'm fine with further investigation. I think we should always look for where we failed. I hope whatever is found gets sorted out. I just wish they cared as much about the grand failure that was Iraq

I think it's far more complicated than just saying the Rs didn't care about Iraq. 

Regardless, I don't think we can say, "Well, the Rs didn't care about the lies in Iraq, so why should we care if the Ds are lying about Benghazi?"  We should care about Benghazi because it was a huge F-up and coverup on the part of our Government that should have never happened and we should take steps to keep it from happening again. Just like we should care about drones, and the needless Iraq war.

[summer]

May 9, 2013 10:24:03 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

May 9, 2013 10:13:33 GMT -5 summer said:

We can agree to disagree on Iraq because I think there were a number of people knowingly lying.

I'm saying I honestly think they are so hot on this because it's a way to get at Hilary or Obama. There is no way it would be being investigated if it was Romney. It could be as possible that if it was Romney the Dems would press for investigations for political reasons, but that I don't know.

But I have a hard time believing that the same people who didn't care about the mistake (and that's me being nice) of a whole war care this much about this incident.

ETA: and can I add, I'm fine with further investigation. I think we should always look for where we failed. I hope whatever is found gets sorted out. I just wish they cared as much about the grand failure that was Iraq

I think it's far more complicated than just saying the Rs didn't care about Iraq. 

Regardless, I don't think we can say, "Well, the Rs didn't care about the lies in Iraq, so why should we care if the Ds are lying about Benghazi?"  We should care about Benghazi because it was a huge F-up and coverup on the part of our Government that should have never happened and we should take steps to keep it from happening again. Just like we should care about drones, and the needless Iraq war.

I didn't say I didn't care and that no one should care. I said I'm glad they are investigating. I'm saying I honestly don't think it's a matter if caring. It's a witch hunt.

It was a 10 year war. I absolutely can't look past caring about this that much and the other not at all.

[MrsAxilla]

May 9, 2013 10:24:03 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

We should care about Benghazi because it was a huge F-up and coverup on the part of our Government that should have never happened and we should take steps to keep it from happening again. Just like we should care about drones, and the needless Iraq war.

What exactly were they covering up? There have been multiple Congressional hearings on this and no evidence of a cover up. What are they supposedly hiding?

[ttt]

May 9, 2013 10:40:49 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

May 9, 2013 10:24:03 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

We should care about Benghazi because it was a huge F-up and coverup on the part of our Government that should have never happened and we should take steps to keep it from happening again. Just like we should care about drones, and the needless Iraq war.

What exactly were they covering up? There have been multiple Congressional hearings on this and no evidence of a cover up. What are they supposedly hiding?

I want to know this too. I am partly annoyed, partly confused by this whole thing.

[annieblah]

May 9, 2013 10:40:49 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

May 9, 2013 10:24:03 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

We should care about Benghazi because it was a huge F-up and coverup on the part of our Government that should have never happened and we should take steps to keep it from happening again. Just like we should care about drones, and the needless Iraq war.

What exactly were they covering up? There have been multiple Congressional hearings on this and no evidence of a cover up. What are they supposedly hiding?

Yah, I don't think it is a coverup, but a big failure in safety and security (the investigative report shows this). That should be the focus...actual change and not just lip service.

[MrsAxilla]

May 9, 2013 10:44:21 GMT -5 annieblah said:

May 9, 2013 10:40:49 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

What exactly were they covering up? There have been multiple Congressional hearings on this and no evidence of a cover up. What are they supposedly hiding?

Yah, I don't think it is a coverup, but a big failure in safety and security (the investigative report shows this). That should be the focus...actual change and not just lip service.

Congress denied requests for additional security funding.  Congress is trying to blame-shift here.

[toph]

May 9, 2013 10:48:13 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

May 9, 2013 10:44:21 GMT -5 annieblah said:

Yah, I don't think it is a coverup, but a big failure in safety and security (the investigative report shows this). That should be the focus...actual change and not just lip service.

Congress denied requests for additional security funding.  Congress is trying to blame-shift here.

I think the determination had been Hillary wasn't made aware appropriately of a need or requests for support or rescue, and now these guys are coming in saying, "Look, we were within a good response range and were ready to go, but were told not to."

Is that accurate?  ::looks around::

[ttt]

I would care a lot more about this if I felt the Republicans were actually trying to improve embassy security and prevent this from happening again rather than just trying to score some political points using an ambassador's death.

[eliseb0323]

May 9, 2013 10:40:49 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

May 9, 2013 10:24:03 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

We should care about Benghazi because it was a huge F-up and coverup on the part of our Government that should have never happened and we should take steps to keep it from happening again. Just like we should care about drones, and the needless Iraq war.

What exactly were they covering up? There have been multiple Congressional hearings on this and no evidence of a cover up. What are they supposedly hiding?

Read the reports from the latest hearings. State Dept. people are testifying that the Dept. knew while the attacks were happening that it was terrorism. There are records documenting that there was never really any doubt about what was going on. And yet the "official" State comments from the days after the attack blame protesters mad about a film that insulted Muhammad.

[annieblah]

May 9, 2013 10:48:13 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

May 9, 2013 10:44:21 GMT -5 annieblah said:

Yah, I don't think it is a coverup, but a big failure in safety and security (the investigative report shows this). That should be the focus...actual change and not just lip service.

Congress denied requests for additional security funding.  Congress is trying to blame-shift here.

They both are..the State Department denied personnel requests, neglecting the concerns of the Libyan guard force's capabilities. In other news,the sky is blue.

[MrsAxilla]

May 9, 2013 10:53:26 GMT -5 toph said:

May 9, 2013 10:48:13 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Congress denied requests for additional security funding.  Congress is trying to blame-shift here.

I think the determination had been Hillary wasn't made aware appropriately of a need or requests for support or rescue, and now these guys are coming in saying, "Look, we were within a good response range and were ready to go, but were told not to."

Is that accurate?  ::looks around::

The testimony was that SoS isn't involved in day to day security minutia for any of the Embassies.  That responsibility is delegated to the Ambassadors.  Even if it's true show wasn't aware, so what?  Where's the cover up?

[ttt]

May 9, 2013 10:58:28 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

May 9, 2013 10:40:49 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

What exactly were they covering up? There have been multiple Congressional hearings on this and no evidence of a cover up. What are they supposedly hiding?

Read the reports from the latest hearings. State Dept. people are testifying that the Dept. knew while the attacks were happening that it was terrorism. There are records documenting that there was never really any doubt about what was going on. And yet the "official" State comments from the days after the attack blame protesters mad about a film that insulted Muhammad.

OK, if this is true....why does this matter? What would have been different if they publicly blamed terrorists instead of protesters? I don't understand.

[BAMFMrsB]

I read this yesterday and wanted to leave this here:

www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/08/1207693/-Today-is-Darrell-Issa-s-big-day-House-GOP-will-hold-Benghazi-hearing

from the comments, titled "selective memory":

On September 17, 2008, terrorists attacked the U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. 6 soldiers guarding the embassy and 7 civilians were killed. 16 more were injured. BUSH DIDN'T RESIGN

July 9, 2008, terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, 3 were killed. BUSH DIDN'T RESIGN

September 12, 2006, terrorists attacked the U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (a second truck bomb failed to detonate). 1 killed and 13 wounded. BUSH DIDN'T RESIGN

March 2, 2006, a suicide car bomber killed 4, at the U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, including a U.S. diplomat directly targeted by the assailants. BUSH DIDN'T RESIGN

December 6, 2004, terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 5 killed, 10 wounded. BUSH DIDN'T RESIGN

July 30, 2004, a suicide bomber killed 2 at the U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan. BUSH DIDN'T RESIGN

February 28, 2003, terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan killing 2. BUSH DIDN'T RESIGN

February 20, 2003, a suicide truck bomber killed 17 at the International Diplomatic Compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. BUSH DIDN'T RESIGN

June 14, 2002, a suicide bomber killed 12 and injures 51 at the U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. BUSH DIDN'T RESIGN

[MrsAxilla]

May 9, 2013 10:58:28 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

May 9, 2013 10:40:49 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

What exactly were they covering up? There have been multiple Congressional hearings on this and no evidence of a cover up. What are they supposedly hiding?

Read the reports from the latest hearings. State Dept. people are testifying that the Dept. knew while they attacks were happening that it was terrorism. There are records documenting that there was never really any doubt about what was going on. And yet the "official" State comments from the days after the attack blame protesters mad about a film that insulted Muhammad.

Ok.  I don't think you understand the meaning of a cover up.  A cover up would be if the Administration orchestrated the whole thing, or if they hid the fact that it happened at all.  Telling one story initially for security purposes is not a cover up, and the truth is out now.  In fact, it was out pretty quickly.  

[eliseb0323]

May 9, 2013 11:01:26 GMT -5 ttt said:

May 9, 2013 10:58:28 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

Read the reports from the latest hearings. State Dept. people are testifying that the Dept. knew while the attacks were happening that it was terrorism. There are records documenting that there was never really any doubt about what was going on. And yet the "official" State comments from the days after the attack blame protesters mad about a film that insulted Muhammad.

OK, if this is true....why does this matter? What would have been different if they publicly blamed terrorists instead of protesters? I don't understand.

Well, it matters be government officials were blatantly lying about whether our embassy was under attack. The national security ramifications are different if we are attacked by terrorists or operatives from another country rather than a protesting mob.

Plus there is the whole issue about whether the embassy staff was surprised by a mob attack or the victims of a terrorist attack that they pretty much saw coming and asked for help to avoid.

Just because the Rs are bent on making Hillary a scapegoat and prolonging the drama, doesn't mean the appropriate people should not be held responsible for their actions.

[eliseb0323]

May 9, 2013 11:02:47 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

May 9, 2013 10:58:28 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

Read the reports from the latest hearings. State Dept. people are testifying that the Dept. knew while they attacks were happening that it was terrorism. There are records documenting that there was never really any doubt about what was going on. And yet the "official" State comments from the days after the attack blame protesters mad about a film that insulted Muhammad.

Ok.  I don't think you understand the meaning of a cover up.  A cover up would be if the Administration orchestrated the whole thing, or if they hid the fact that it happened at all.  Telling one story initially for security purposes is not a cover up, and the truth is out now.  In fact, it was out pretty quickly.  

Yeah, we are just going to disagree on that point. I think knowing what happened and purposely putting out a false story (and I don't see how telling that false story was for "security purposes") is a coverup. I could see if they really didn't know what was going on and put out the wrong info. But records are showing they knew exactly what was going on as it was happening. They purposely chose to cover up the truth -- think because telling the truth would show their own mis-steps in security.

[jillboston]

You're supposed to care about it for the same reason people were supposed to care about
Whitewater (years and years and years of testimony about a land deal that the Clintons lost money on)
Vince Foster (that lesbian Hillary was sleeping with him and had to kill him suicide style - or something)
Travel Gate (those nasty Clintons cleaned out the White House travel office of Bush people and hired their own travel staff)

Get used to this folks. They will do *anything* to keep her from the White House - and when she wins they will have ongoing investigations throughout her Presidency. You heard it here first.

[eliseb0323]

May 9, 2013 11:22:43 GMT -5 jillboston said:

You're supposed to care about it for the same reason people were supposed to care about
Whitewater (years and years and years of testimony about a land deal that the Clintons lost money on)
Vince Foster (that lesbian Hillary was sleeping with him and had to kill him suicide style - or something)
Travel Gate (those nasty Clintons cleaned out the White House travel office of Bush people and hired their own travel staff)

Get used to this folks. They will do *anything* to keep her from the White House - and when she wins they will have ongoing investigations throughout her Presidency. You heard it here first.

I honestly don't know why Hillary would want to be President after all the crap she's been through.

[ttt]

May 9, 2013 11:14:31 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

May 9, 2013 11:01:26 GMT -5 ttt said:

OK, if this is true....why does this matter? What would have been different if they publicly blamed terrorists instead of protesters? I don't understand.

Well, it matters be government officials were blatantly lying about whether our embassy was under attack. The national security ramifications are different if we are attacked by terrorists or operatives from another country rather than a protesting mob.

Plus there is the whole issue about whether the embassy staff was surprised by a mob attack or the victims of a terrorist attack that they pretty much saw coming and asked for help to avoid.

Just because the Rs are bent on making Hillary a scapegoat and prolonging the drama, doesn't mean the appropriate people should not be held responsible for their actions.

What sort of national security ramifications? It sounds like the government knew what was really going on, so how does it matter if the public thought something different for (less than) one day?

I still want to know what specifically would have been different if the government had told the public "it's terrorism" instead of "it's protesters."